MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125488019 · doi:10.4141/p06-059

Inter simple sequence repeat (ISSR) to assess genetic diversity within a collection of wild lingonberry (<i>Vaccinium vitis-idaea</i> L.) clones

2007· article· en· W2125488019 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Samir C. Debnath

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBerry genetics and cultivation research
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUPGMAGenetic diversityBiologyAnalysis of molecular varianceVacciniumGermplasmGeneticsMicrosatelliteGenetic variationBotanyGenetic structurePopulationGeneDemographyAllele

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forty-three wild lingonberry [Vaccinium vitis-idaea ssp. minus (Lodd) Hult.] clones collected from four Canadian provinces were assessed for genetic variability by using inter simple sequence repeat (ISSR). Fifteen primers generated 356 polymorphic ISSR-PCR bands. A substantial degree of genetic diversity was found am ong the wild collections. Cluster analysis by the unweighted pair-group method with arithmetic averages (UPGMA) separated the wild clones into four main clusters, and identified the two remaining clones as outliers. Furthermore, within four clusters, the genotypes tended to form sub-clusters that were in agreement with the principal coordinate (PCO) analysis. Geographical distribution explained 10% of total variation as revealed by analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA). The ISSR markers detected a sufficient degree of polymorphism to differentiate among lingonberry clones, making this technology valuable for germplasm management and the more efficient choice of parents in current lingonberry breeding programs. Key words: Vaccinium vitis-idaea, DNA fingerprinting, molecular marker

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.646
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicBerry genetics and cultivation researchFrench-language works237,207